Did Floyd make the right decision about Barrett?

Cactus Choir wrote: ^ I read (think it was in the NME Book of Rock) that Barrett turned up at the WYWH sessions and said he was "ready to do his bit" whatever that might have meant. Wasn't he also no longer the original 'pretty' Syd by 1975? They probably didn't want a fat, bald lead singer/guitarist with a penchant for playing one chord at that stage in their career, sad though the situation was. If he was able to produce decent material perhaps he could have written for the band, but again that seems an unlikely scenario.

While this seems to show, at first glance, that Syd suffered from the delusion that he was still in the band, he may just have made a joke about that, being amazed about what a big thing his former band had become.  It would have been very much in his character.  Of course, given the state he was in, as you said, he had no place in the band as it was in 1975, and that was clear to everyone.  Certainly, the band was nostalgic about what he had been before he screwed up, but it was obvious that he no longer was what he used to be in '67.  Sometimes, well, things change, and won't return.



Edited by WeepingElf - April 10 2015 at 12:17

chopper wrote: SteveG wrote: chopper wrote: SteveG wrote: And don't forget, Barrett didn't cure cancer, he only produced marketable pop music. Having heard his solo albums, I would have to dispute the use of the phrase "marketable pop music". I would not. None of Barrett's solo albums are what I would consider to be of "cult artist" status and have probably sold many times platinum over 40 years time, which has as much to do with who he was, as well as what music he actually produced, and that makes his makes his music quite marketable.  So that leads us to the question: What then is pop music? (with apologies to Wiki)      The term popular music belongs to any of a number of musical genres "having wide appeal"[1][2] and typically distributed to large audiences through the music industry. It stands in contrast to both art music[3][4][5] and traditional music, which are typically disseminated academically or orally to smaller, local audiences.[3][4][5] The original application of the term is to music of the 1880s Tin Pan Alley period in the United States.[1] Although popular music sometimes is known as "pop music", the two terms are not interchangeable[citation needed]. Popular music is a generic term for music of all ages that appeals to popular tastes,[6] whereas pop music usually refers to a specific musical genre.[citation needed]   As Barrett's music, and Floyd's for that matter, was professionally produced, packaged and marketed to obtain maximum sales, I think it better fits this definition:    According to Simon Frith pop music is produced "as a matter of enterprise not art", is "designed to appeal to everyone" and "doesn't come from any particular place or mark off any particular taste". It is "not driven by any significant ambition except profit and commercial reward ... and, in musical terms, it is essentially conservative". It is, "provided from on high (by record companies, radio programmers and concert promoters) rather than being made from below ... Pop is not a do-it-yourself music but is professionally produced and packaged".[14]     Dueling pistols at dawn. I'll even let you shoot first.   All I meant was, the average "pop" fan (i.e. someone who buys stuff in the top 40) would listen to a Syd Barrett album and probably say something like "wtf is this?".

Fair enough, Chopper. I was only rehashing some of the age old hyperbole regarding this issue (in questionable taste, on reflection). But to be honest, dumbed down acoustic based (mostly) folk rock with whimsical lyrics doesn't strike me as something that would give a seventies (and this is key) pop fan a WTF reaction. It's not as if Syd's singing about a satanic mass with vitriol, but I could be jaded.

Edited by SteveG - April 14 2015 at 15:49

Svetonio wrote: Cactus Choir wrote: ^ I read (think it was in the NME Book of Rock) that Barrett turned up at the WYWH sessions and said he was "ready to do his bit" whatever that might have meant. Wasn't he also no longer the original 'pretty' Syd by 1975? They probably didn't want a fat, bald lead singer/guitarist with a penchant for playing one chord at that stage in their career, sad though the situation was. If he was able to produce decent material perhaps he could have written for the band, but again that seems an unlikely scenario.   I have a Yugoslav version of great The illustrated NME Encyclopedia of Rock.  The book, as an archaeological artifact as well, perfectly shows the overall view of its time, due to which today's self-styled "historians" and revisionists do not like it. Syd Barrett's appearance in the studio during mixing of the Shine On You Crazy Diamond  is actually mentioned in that separated entry of Syd Barrett, though it says that this is "the most latest story"(about Syd Barrett). So the writer does not claim that to be so really happened, but tells us "the latest story." It should be noted that the encyclopedia was written in 1976

Part of the fascination with the book is that it was written at such a transitional time. The entries for the Punk bands appeared to have been added at the last minute and they didn't have time to re-write those for Floyd, Zeppelin etc to make them as critical as they would have been a few months later. I didn't agree with a lot of their judgments but it was well written and useful as a reference work. I particularly remember the description of ELP as "an ego-inflated dinosaur" which at the time I thought sounded pretty cool!

SteveG wrote: But to be honest, dumbed down acoustic based (mostly) folk rock with whimsical lyrics doesn't strike me as something that would give a seventies (and this is key) pop fna a WTF reaction. It's not as if Syd's singing about a satanic mass with vitriol, but I could be jaded.

Casting the anticipated reaction of our hypothetical 70's pop fan to one side, do you honestly equate Syd's solo output as 'dumbed down folk rock with whimsical lyrics?' I know it's all a matter of subjective taste when all said and done but for me, there is material on both The Madcap Laughs and Barrett that ranks as high as the psychedelic pop masterpieces of See Emily Play, Arnold Layne, The Scarecrow, Bike, Lucifer Sam and Astronomy Domine etc that Syd created within Floyd. Yes, the solo stuff is a bit sloppy, ragged and disjointed but given his fragile mental health that's hardly surprising. Does an unplugged fender telecaster used for his rhythm guitar parts make this material strictly 'acoustic folk' i.e. ain't you guilty of confusing (misheard) texture with style here?

Svetonio wrote: Cactus Choir wrote: Svetonio wrote: Cactus Choir wrote: ^ I read (think it was in the NME Book of Rock) that Barrett turned up at the WYWH sessions and said he was "ready to do his bit" whatever that might have meant. Wasn't he also no longer the original 'pretty' Syd by 1975? They probably didn't want a fat, bald lead singer/guitarist with a penchant for playing one chord at that stage in their career, sad though the situation was. If he was able to produce decent material perhaps he could have written for the band, but again that seems an unlikely scenario.   I have a Yugoslav version of great The illustrated NME Encyclopedia of Rock.  The book, as an archaeological artifact as well, perfectly shows the overall view of its time, due to which today's self-styled "historians" and revisionists do not like it. Syd Barrett's appearance in the studio during mixing of the Shine On You Crazy Diamond  is actually mentioned in that separated entry of Syd Barrett, though it says that this is "the most latest story"(about Syd Barrett). So the writer does not claim that to be so really happened, but tells us "the latest story." It should be noted that the encyclopedia was written in 1976 Part of the fascination with the book is that it was written at such a transitional time. The entries for the Punk bands appeared to have been added at the last minute and they didn't have time to re-write those for Floyd, Zeppelin etc to make them as critical as they would have been a few months later. I didn't agree with a lot of their judgments but it was well written and useful as a reference work. I particularly remember the description of ELP as "an ego-inflated dinosaur" which at the time I thought sounded pretty cool!  <span id="result_" lang="en"><span ="hps"="">Yes</span><span>,</span> <span ="hps"="">I remember</span> <span ="hps"="">that especially </span><span ="hps"="">ELP,</span> <span ="hps"="">Led</span> <span ="hps"="">Zeppelin, Pink Floyd</span> and The Rolling Stones <span ="hps"="">were often called</span> "<span ="hps"="">dinosaur</span> <span ="hps"="">bands" in the rock press in the middle and second half of seventies</span><span>.</span> <span ="hps"="">Though</span> I remember also that the term<span ="hps"=""> represented</span> <span ="hps"="">something</span> *very big* more<span ="hps"=""> than *</span><span>extinguished*</span><span>. And yes, it was cool at that time! Well, their gigs at the stadiums, the way how all of it was staged and the pics as those really <span id="result_" lang="en"><span ="hps"="">have encouraged</span> usage of that<span ="hps"=""> term</span></span> as well...                           </span></span>

I'm afraid you're a little off the mark, Svetonio. "Dinosaur" as a description was applied to those bands that were archaic and out of touch with what was practically universally heralded as punk's passion for what was in vogue and timely back around 1976-1977. In another words, if a band at the time was a dinosaur, it was obsolete and therefore on the way out. By the way, can't stand punk but still love my dinosaurs!

Edited by Rednight - April 14 2015 at 16:20

Rednight wrote: Svetonio wrote: Cactus Choir wrote: Svetonio wrote: Cactus Choir wrote: ^ I read (think it was in the NME Book of Rock) that Barrett turned up at the WYWH sessions and said he was "ready to do his bit" whatever that might have meant. Wasn't he also no longer the original 'pretty' Syd by 1975? They probably didn't want a fat, bald lead singer/guitarist with a penchant for playing one chord at that stage in their career, sad though the situation was. If he was able to produce decent material perhaps he could have written for the band, but again that seems an unlikely scenario.   I have a Yugoslav version of great The illustrated NME Encyclopedia of Rock.  The book, as an archaeological artifact as well, perfectly shows the overall view of its time, due to which today's self-styled "historians" and revisionists do not like it. Syd Barrett's appearance in the studio during mixing of the Shine On You Crazy Diamond  is actually mentioned in that separated entry of Syd Barrett, though it says that this is "the most latest story"(about Syd Barrett). So the writer does not claim that to be so really happened, but tells us "the latest story." It should be noted that the encyclopedia was written in 1976 Part of the fascination with the book is that it was written at such a transitional time. The entries for the Punk bands appeared to have been added at the last minute and they didn't have time to re-write those for Floyd, Zeppelin etc to make them as critical as they would have been a few months later. I didn't agree with a lot of their judgments but it was well written and useful as a reference work. I particularly remember the description of ELP as "an ego-inflated dinosaur" which at the time I thought sounded pretty cool!  <span id="result_" lang="en"><span ="hps"="">Yes</span><span>,</span> <span ="hps"="">I remember</span> <span ="hps"="">that especially </span><span ="hps"="">ELP,</span> <span ="hps"="">Led</span> <span ="hps"="">Zeppelin, Pink Floyd</span> and The Rolling Stones <span ="hps"="">were often called</span> "<span ="hps"="">dinosaur</span> <span ="hps"="">bands" in the rock press in the middle and second half of seventies</span><span>.</span> <span ="hps"="">Though</span> I remember also that the term<span ="hps"=""> represented</span> <span ="hps"="">something</span> *very big* more<span ="hps"=""> than *</span><span>extinguished*</span><span>. And yes, it was cool at that time! Well, their gigs at the stadiums, the way how all of it was staged and the pics as those really <span id="result_" lang="en"><span ="hps"="">have encouraged</span> usage of that<span ="hps"=""> term</span></span> as well...                           </span></span> I'm afraid you're a little off the mark, Svetonio. "Dinosaur" as a description was applied to those bands that were archaic and out of touch with what was practically universally heralded as punk's passion for what was in vogue and timely back around 1976-1977. In another words, if a band at the time was a dinosaur, it was obsolete and therefore on the way out. By the way, can't stand punk but still love my dinosaurs!

<span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span ="hps"="lovely span"></span><span ="hps"="wonderful span!"></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span>

^I'm with the rodent on this one... I don't see how Madcap or Barrett (or Opel) are acid folk (aka psych folk) albums.

NutterAlert wrote: I am not sure what annoys me most....the exploitative non-story of Roger Barrett who tried to quietly live out his days in Cambridge or the fact a despicable rag such as Daily Express is quoted here.

Edited by Svetonio - April 15 2015 at 07:50